RSS Feed MenuToday is June 25th and I hope this year, given the international tensions all around us, we pause and consider that today is not just another day but the 59th anniversary of the start of the Korean War.
When the 300,000 troops of the North Korean People’s Army supported by tanks and artillery violently smashed across the 38th parallel to invade and overrun most of the South, they unleashed a conflagration that would grow to be a three year bloodbath pitting the forces of Communism and the Western Democracies against each other for the first time. (It would also be the first time that the nascent United Nations would commit military forces to halt the aggression of one nation against another, showing that the UN must be backed by military will to be effective.) After initial see-saw fighting down to Pusan, then up to the Yalu River after the Inchon landings, and then back down again after the massive Chinese intervention, the fighting settled into a brutal stalemate along a line that eventually would mimic the original pre-war border. When the fighting finally ended in July 1953, the war left in its wake four million military and civilian casualties, including 34,000 American dead and another 100,000 wounded. South Korea would suffer almost 1 million casualties, the other UN nations a combined 17,000 as well. An estimated 520,000 North Koreans and another 900,000 Chinese were casualties.
One of the wounded from that war was a young Second Lieutenant Jack Schaeffer from the 1st US Marine Division, my father. Though he physically recovered from his wounds, he would spend the rest of his life dealing with bouts of depression which, though he never admitted it, I am convinced were the direct result of his experiences in that savage conflict. In his more reflective moments, usually after a pint or three, he would tell me bits and pieces of what he saw and did there. Needless to say, they were disturbing. And one thing I think always went through his mind was this: was the sacrifice made by him and his fellow soldiers worth it?
I think the events a few weeks back regarding the sentencing by North Korea of two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to twelve years hard labor for “illegal entry” would provide some comfort to my dad as to what his suffering meant. The tragic fate of these two women is indicative of the horrors that 23 million North Koreans are forced to endure every day. I will not get into the nitty-gritty of the starvation, exposure, poor health conditions, the physical and mental abuse, the slave labor camps, and general privations these isolated people suffer as this has been well-documented. But I will say that if there was ever a place that resembled Tolkien’s Mordor on this earth, North Korea would be a frigid contender.
When you compare this dismal picture with the vibrant and modern South, the true value of the Allies’ intervention in 1950 reveals itself. Again, I could list all of South Korea’s accomplishments, including its economic prowess, its high standard of living, its relatively free and open society and juxtapose that against the hermit kingdom north of the DMZ but I think this famous satellite photo says it all:
Guess where South Korea ends and North Korea begins? Enough said.
So here then in black-and-white is the legacy of the US-led military action to stave off flagrant communist aggression and protect a vibrant society so that it could develop unmolested by those in Pyongyang who would like nothing more than bring them under their control by force. Like all wars, the Korean War had its ugly moments, but the overall value of our actions, and the service we performed for humanity cannot be denied. There are in fact 48 million people living in sunlight today thanks to men like my father.
I will be honest when I say I have no idea how Obama should handle the journalists’ captivity. This is but the latest of bizarre tantrums on the part of Kim to get noticed. Nuclear tests, cancelling the 1953 armistice technically making him at war with the UN again firing missiles. And now this very public sentencing of these reporters. He wants something. But what he wants, no one can say. It’s hard to read the mind of a sexually deviant power-mad lunatic. Despite Robert Gibbs’ ludicrous statement that “[The journalists’] detainment is not something that we’ve linked to other issues, and we hope the North Koreans don’t do that, either,”this is clearly a test of this administration’s will. I do not envy Obama on this one. We do not wield that kind of power in the region any more. And the sad reality is that without Chinese intercession there is little he can really do. Given that the Chinese like having a buffer between Manchuria and the free nations, especially Japan — cynically condemning millions of innocents to hell on earth to protect their selfish aims — do not hold your breath waiting for their help. (The Chinese government is hardly sympathetic to journalists anyway which is another strike against these poor women). So here we find an example of where the rubber of Obama’s sense of his ability to use his charisma as a foreign policy tool, meets the road of the reality that it is a dangerous world in which not all leaders want what we want… and in fact care little for our way or life or human rights as a whole. The President seems to be operating under the impression that international conflicts are mere “misunderstandings” and that if we talk it out, we will get back to a harmony that he believes is the natural state between nations. Unfortunately, as today’s anniversary shows us, history teaches otherwise. It is best our leader remember this going forward.
I sincerely wish Mr. Obama luck on North Korea. This is a tough one and if he is not sure exactly how to proceed, it’s understandable. Only Kim knows Kim. All I would ask is for him to really consider the nature of the despots he is trying to engage. It would help him in this end to reflect upon what South Korea would look like today if the United States had not stepped in fifty-nine years ago and shed its blood and treasure to keep that nation free of the yolk of communist oppression that so torments the people of the North today. If he takes anything constructive away from the plight of the two unfortunate women now presumably languishing in a North Korean labor camp, it is that he is witnessing first hand the misery that great swaths of the world would be subjected to without our imprint. And I would like him to admit just once that no other nation in history has sacrificed so much for the benefit of others. Maybe the next time he embarks on one of his Apologia Americana tours, he might first fly at night over the sprawling city of Seoul with its skyscrapers, bright lights, vibrant colorful streets and teeming masses of free people and then cast his eyes northward to peer into the dark void in the gloomy distance. Perhaps then he may reflect upon the fact that the United States made this contrast possible. That the country whose standard he now bears has done a lot of good in the world. And that proud Americans like Lt. Jack Schaeffer, USMC, have left the gift of freedom and prosperity as their legacy, giving meaning to their grim suffering far from home, in a foreign land for people they never knew.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:24 am
Jeffryw 4:27 PMSo….WHO WAS RIGHT Otto? An abolitionist in 1800 or a slaveholder? (Think carefully)……..I don’t need to think……I’m inclined to believe I would have been an abolitionist but I’m not stupid enough or puffed up with my own self righteousness to think that who and what I was at the time wouldn’t have had a major influence on my opinions. This is a time in England where the abolitionist movement started btw when you could be transported for stealing a loaf of bread or hung for stealing a sheep. I’m afraid your rather santimonious rationalizations are completely one dimensional and unconnected with historical reality.
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:33 am
“They were clearly wrong.”Otto, do you not see that all other arguments notwithstanding, you continue to contradict your own fundamental premise of moral relativism by making such an absolute statement?Why do you think they were “clearly wrong”? What measurement/standard are you holding them up against to come to this conclusion?
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:36 am
“……..I don’t need to think……I’m inclined to believe I would have been an abolitionist but I’m not stupid enough or puffed up with my own self righteousness to think that who and what I was at the time wouldn’t have had a major influence on my opinions.”Again you are not answering the question. Let us say for sake of argument you would have been a die-hard John C. Calhoun slave man. Would have been right or wrong to hold that opinion? If you were right, then abolishionists, who lived at the same time, were then wrong yes? Or were you both right? And as societies develop we like to think we are more enlightened, but that does not mean that lack of enlightenment means lack of fundamental moral truth any more than just because the ancients were unaware of what stars were (thinking them torches of gods or whatever) did not change the fact that they are flaming balls of superheated fission reactors. Truth is truth. One’s perception of truth does not alter that.
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:39 am
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:45 am
You label me sanctimonious because I believe that there is an absolute unchanging Right and Wrong. But sanctimonious means hypocritically pious or devout.Have I ever said that I am the measure of Right and Wrong? Have I said that I would not have been an overseer if living in a different time? Of course not…you have tossed up a straw man.What I am saying is that if I WERE a slave-holder I would have been wrong…period…regardless of if society found it acceptable. Either you cannot grasp that basic premise, are afraid to address it as it would force you to recant your moral relativist theory, or you are being purposefully obtuse and intellectually disengenious to save face. The fact is I am not the arbiter or righteousness any more than I may decide that 2+2=5. But I would like to think that I know intrinsic right and wrong, regardless if I always follow the right path. And if I say that someone who says 2+2= 4 is anything but wrong I am not being sanctimonious at all. Please use big words properly if you intend to use them at all. Thanks mate.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:05 am
Jeffryw wrote 24 minutes ago”Otto, do you not see that all other arguments notwithstanding, you continue to contradict your own fundamental premise of moral relativism by making such an absolute statement?”……….Moral relativism had no place in 1938, the modern age, in the persecution and mass murder of the jews……On the other hand in 1800 the picture on slavery was less clear…….Time, place and context is largely if not entirely what shapes definitions of morality……by the 1840’s the age of Calhoun the goal posts had moved………You’re welcome to your belief that definitions of morality are fixed and immutable but I’m not going to hold the ancient Romans to our mores on cruelty to animals or 18th century slave traders to ours on slavery……..They were simply different worlds.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:08 am
Jeffryw wrote 20 minutes ago”You label me sanctimonious because I believe that there is an absolute unchanging Right and Wrong. But sanctimonious means hypocritically pious or devout.Have I ever said that I am the measure of Right and Wrong? “…………..I suggest you re-read…..it’s implicit in most of what you’ve written.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:13 am
Jeffryw wrote 24 minutes ago “But sanctimonious means hypocritically pious or devout.”……….It also means have an hypocritical attachment to righteousness
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:15 am
You still are avoiding the central question and I suspect you know it of course. So I will ask you point blank:Was the Holocaust wrong? Not did people THINK it was wrong. Or right or whatever. But as an absolute moral truth, and unequivocal position, is it intrinsically wrong to herd innocent men, women, and children into gas chambers and poison them to death?Was slavery wrong? Not did people THINK it was wrong. Or right or whatever. But as an absolute moral truth, and unequivocal position, is it intrinsically wrong to hold others in bondage against their will?Do not tell me what people thought or where societal norms rested along a certain point on teh historical timeline. I am well aware of this. Just answer the questions.
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:16 am
How am I a hypocrite. Please explain?
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:31 am
“You’re welcome to your belief that definitions of morality are fixed and immutable but I’m not going to hold the ancient Romans to our mores on cruelty to animals or 18th century slave traders to ours on slavery……..They were simply different worlds.”I am not blaming them for their immorality any more than I blame someone who has lived in a cave and never been taught math for not knowing their sums. But that does not mean that the laws of math do not exist. I am simply saying that just as those who thought the earth was flat back in the Middle Ages were wrong, so too is nailing someone to cross. Unless of course you think the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc did not exist for people before the Enlightenment? So therefore the idea of a Right To Life is invented?
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:34 am
“You’re welcome to your belief that definitions of morality are fixed and immutable but I’m not going to hold the ancient Romans to our mores on cruelty to animals or 18th century slave traders to ours on slavery……..They were simply different worlds.”I am not blaming them for their immorality any more than I blame someone who has lived in a cave and never been taught math for not knowing their sums. But that does not mean that the laws of math do not exist. I am simply saying that just as those who thought the earth was flat back in the Middle Ages were wrong, so too is nailing someone to cross. Unless of course you think the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc did not exist for people before the Enlightenment? So therefore the idea of a Right To Life is invented?
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 8:38 am
“You’re welcome to your belief that definitions of morality are fixed and immutable but I’m not going to hold the ancient Romans to our mores on cruelty to animals or 18th century slave traders to ours on slavery……..They were simply different worlds.”I am not blaming them for their immorality any more than I blame someone who has lived in a cave and never been taught math for not knowing their sums. But that does not mean that the laws of math do not exist. I am simply saying that just as those who thought the earth was flat back in the Middle Ages were wrong, so too is nailing someone to cross. Unless of course you think the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc did not exist for people before the Enlightenment? So therefore the idea of a Right To Life is invented?
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:04 am
Jeffryw wrote 13 minutes ago”Unless of course you think the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc did not exist for people before the Enlightenment? So therefore the idea of a Right To Life is invented?”….No need tell us three times…….and it doesn’t matter what we think today, whats matters in this context is what they thought in 1700. ” I am not blaming them for their immorality “………….But you did…..starting off with the Chinese communists, moving through slave owners, then onto the entire German people without distinction for their complicity in the murder of the jews, then the gay community, then finally back to slave owners.”How am I a hypocrite. Please explain?”…………I’ll leave you to work that out for yourself.
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:17 am
“no need to tell us three times.” Ooookay. So now you’ve just degenrated into picking at an obvious computer glitch as a point of argument. Splendid. The last refuge of a failed argument on the net. Fair nuff. (Sorry…fair “enough”) And of course you still do not answer my question–not that I expected you would of course. So clever…to yourself I guess.Anyway since I am not afraid to answer your queries (as you are mine) I will respond to your piint that I am blaming the Chicoms. You mistake blaming for judging. I will judge that slavery, crucifixion, mass murder of Jews etc is certainly wrong. As did you when you said about Germany “clearly they wre wrong.” But once again, I do not blame them per se. If someone is never tuaght math, I do not BLAME them for offering that 2+2 = 5. They are a product of their environment (in this case lack of proper schooling. In the slave times lack of proper enlightenment for many) But I will certainly judge them as wrong because the rules of math state so. So now I ask YOU for the umpteenth time: Is there an INTRINSIC right or wrong is it all completely and totally relative…therefore really non-existent at all but just a matter of consensus?
Jeffryw // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:20 am
And I am not so bright as you can tell so I would appreciate you telling me how I am a hypocrite. Walk me through it.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:43 am
Jeffryw wrote 14 minutes ago”You mistake blaming for judging.”……..For those of us unafflicted by pedantry this is largely a distinction without a difference. In your world the mass murder of the jews is “wrong” but you’re not “blaming” the Nazi regime for this although earlier you clearly held responsible the entire population of 90 million (you made a big thing of the 90 million although it’s actually an incorrect figure) Germans for their crimes.
KL7212 // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:43 am
Well, I think it’s pretty clear from history that a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the Founders thought that slavery did not belong in the newly formed United States. That doesn’t mean they thought of black Africans as equals. They had a much more hierarchical view of the world than contemporary Americans and were probably more willing to accept the “natural order of things” at least in the social sphere, than we.Likewise, I think the Communists benefitted a great deal, and not entirely without merit, from their role in the defeat of Fascism. After all, the USSR sacrificed more citizens in WWII than all the other Western Allies combined.That said, the objections to the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist state were nearly as strong 60 years ago as they are now. The revelation of the extent of their crimes against their people have only made them stronger since then.
ottovbvs // Jun 26, 2009 at 9:44 am
Jeffryw wrote 23 minutes agoAnd I am not so bright as you …….That’s quite possibly true judging by the parade of muddled thinking.
How Much Will Iran Charge for Its American Hostages? // Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm
[...] Euna Lee and Laura Ling, from North Korean captivity is a fitting denouement to my June 25 article commemorating the Korean War’s anniversary as it aptly demonstrates how far we have atrophied [...]